Dorris v. McManus

Action to Quiet Title—Pleading—General Denial—Issue as to Title—Conclusion from Proof.—In an action to quiet title, a general denial to an unverified complaint merely puts in issue the plaintiff’s title, and not the averment that any claim of the defendant is without right. If plaintiff proves his title, and no affirmative defense is shown, it necessarily follows from such proof that any claim of the defendant is without right, whether adverse or not.

Id.—Burden of Proof upon Bach Party—Bindings in Absence of Proof.—The burden is upon plaintiff to prove his title, if put in issue, and is upon the defendant to prove any adverse claim pleaded by him, and if plaintiff’s title is shown, and no proof is offered of the adverse claim pleaded, the findings must be for the plaintiff, and against the defendant.

Id.—Defense—Conveyance in Braud of Creditors—Bindings.—-Where defendants, who were creditors of plaintiff’s grantor, pleaded that the conveyance from him was in fraud of creditors, and pleaded actions pending by them as creditors, and asked to have the action stayed until judgments should be recovered, upon which the conveyance might be set aside for such alleged fraud, where no-proof was offered by them of such fraud upon creditors, the court was free to find that their claim was adverse to the plaintiffs, and was without right, and where plaintiffs unnecessarily proved the entire good faith of the transactions culminating in their title, free from any taint of fraud, the court was authorized so specially to find.

Id.—General and Special Findings—Consistency—Support by Evidence—Technical Rules of Law Inapplicable.—A general finding of title in the plaintiffs, and special findings in relation to the deraignment of title in plaintiffs, assailed by the defendants for fraud, and that such title is untainted by fraud, are consistent, and it is sufficient that all of the findings, general and special, for the plaintiffs are fully supported by the evidence, and that technical-rules of law relied upon by the defendants, though entitled to recognition, are without merit under the facts and circumstances proved.